Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 27450.1120848343@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.

If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
acceptable to you at all.  We are talking about going from a system
that can actually survive torn-page cases to one that can only tell
you whether you've lost data to such a case.  Arguing about the
probability with which we can detect the loss seems beside the point.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Fixing domain input